Item 15b Report on Request for Unlimited Sevice Collection Rates and Setting a Public Hearing to Discuss Unlimited Service and Amendment to Green Valley Disposal RatesCOUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 8/7/89
ITEM NO. / 5" .1)' .
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 3, 1989
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBORAH SWARTFAGER, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON REQUEST FOR UNLIMITED SERVICE
COLLECTION RATES AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO
DISCUSS UNLIMITED SERVICE AND AMENDMENT TO GREEN
VALLEY DISPOSAL RATES
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council consider the request for unlimited service by scheduling a public hearing
on October 16, 1989 to consider unlimited service and curbside recycling as amendments
to Green Valley Disposal Rates.
BACKGROUND:
In recent weeks staff has received correspondence from some of our residents describing
their displeasure with Green Valley's new "voluntary" Toter program. The following
staff report describes those concepts and the recommendation to conduct a combined
public hearing on garbage collection services in October.
PREPARED BY; DEBORAH SWARTFAGER, Town Manager DS:pm
MGRO1 A:\CNCLRFI'S\8-7-2
Reviewed by: Attorney
TOWN ACTION DIRECTED TO:
ACTION OF COUNCIL: 5 \‘.k) asASviv:e(
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR UNLIMITED SERVICE COLLECTION RATES AND
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS UNLIMITED SERVICE
AND AMENDMENT TO GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL RATES
AUGUST 3, 1989
DISCUSSION:
As the Council is aware, annually the rate review committee representing staff from
each of the four communities (Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga ) who
are a party to the Joint Powers Agreement for Garbage Collection, meet to discuss the
garbage collection rates. The review includes the cost of garbage collection in each
community and the revenue collected. Each of the communities has different rates for
garbage collection based on the varying costs and revenues within the community.
Campbell and Los Gatos for example, have lower rates for garbage collection than
Saratoga and Monte Sereno, because our revenue is greater due to a larger commercial
base.
This spring, the rate review committee met to discuss the rate structure and it was
concluded that Los Gatos did not require a rate adjustment, as our revenue collection
was sufficient to cover the cost of collection in our community. It was clear that a rate
adjustment would most likely be required next year, however (see attached report from
the rate review committee). At that same time the committee also reviewed the results
of an audit of the Green Valley collection system and forwarded the results of that audit
to all Council's.
Following those discussions, Green Valley proposed a "Voluntary" Toter program which
involved providing a rental garbage can with wheels to the community. The program
was begun on an experimental basis in Saratoga and Campbell and now is offered
community wide. Several months ago the program was begun in Los Gatos. The
program is voluntary but if selected by the resident results in a $2.00 fee per month for
the rental of the container.
The program is considered a semi -automatic collection system and is intended to reduce
the cost of worker's compensation to Green Valley over time. While the program is
"voluntary" it became a concern to some members or our community who were paying
for two can service, because acceptance of the "Toter" raised their level of service from
two can to three can service. Green Valley has since agreed not to solicit two can
customers for this voluntary service to avoid any confusion over increased service levels
and increased monthly costs for the resident.
While the 'Toter" program is voluntary, the Town's franchise agreement with Green
Valley does give the Town Council the ability to regulate all services provided by Green
Valley. Upon being notified of this voluntary program, staff did not immediately
schedule a public hearing, but made a conscious decision to combine all discussion
regarding Green Valley's rates and services until the consideration of curb -side recycling.
It was determined that it was in the best interest of the entire community to review all
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR UNLIMITED SERVICE COLLECTION RATES AND
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS UNLIMITED SERVICE
AND AMENDMENT TO GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL RATES
AUGUST 3, 1989
potential rate increases at one time. In this manner, the community would not be faced
with several adjustments to their rates in one fiscal year.
In discussing the residents' concerns for the "toter program" it became clear the more
significant underlying issue is a desire for unlimited collection. The policy question of a
per -can system versus unlimited collection has been discussed by the Council on previous
occasions. The philosophy during previous discussions has centered on the
environmental concerns of unlimited collection. Landfill space is a limited commodity
and to help extend the life of the landfill, a per -can collection system was established.
The concept is that if refuse collection has a "value" than a connection could be made
that the landfill has a "value". Therefore, if it costs more to dispose of greater amounts
of refuse than a property owner may have more incentive to recycle. As each of our
neighboring communities has gone to unlimited collection, there has been growing
interest in our community to establish unlimited collection.
Each time an adjustment to the Green Valley franchise is considered, the issue of
unlimited collection rates has been raised for consideration. It is recommended that this
issue be considered again in October during the hearing on curbside recycling and the
consideration of the Town's annual rates for garbage collection.
As indicated previously, the Town's rates for garbage collection did not require an
adjustment for this calendar year. However, to limit the amount of increase in future
years, the Council may want to consider an increase in rates during the public hearing
scheduled for October. If unlimited collection is selected, the rate increase should reflect
a rate that recognizes there will be increased refuse collected in our community than is
currently collected by Green Valley which will result in an increased cost of collection.
This will also help diminish the possibilities of larger increases in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Council Agenda
Date: 3/ 20/89/�
Item No.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Council Acanda RaDort
DATE: MARCH 7, 1989
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBORAH SWARTFAGER, TOWN MANAG
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION OF REQ ST FOR PROPOSALS FOR
CURBSIDE RECYCLING
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council approve distribution of the attached request for
proposals for a curbside recycling program to be implemented in the
four city West Valley region.
PREPARED BY: REGINA A. FALKNE1 ,
Community Services
A:\CNCLRPTS\3-20-1
RAF:vjg
Reviewed by: Attorney
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION DIRECTED TO:
ACTION OF COUNCIL: fi
COMMENT$ i
Report to IL. or and Town Council
Approval of Distribution of Request for
Proposals for Curbside Recycling
March 7, 1989
Page Two
The attached report from the,Rate Review Committee (consisting of
Staff representatives from the Town, Saratoga, Campbell and Monte
sereno) provides the following:
Summary of the request for proposal
Background to the request including discussions of
o The Proposal Submitted by Green Valley Disposal
Company
o The County Solid Waste Management Plan
o Guadalupe Expansion
o State Legislation
o Jurisdictions Served by Green Valley - Status of
Curbside Recycling.
CONCLUSIOJ(:
The attached request for proposal describes a curbside recycling
service tailored to meet the needs of the West Valley communities.
It encompasses all the characteristics requested by the City
Managers of the involved jurisdictions. If approved by each of the
City Councils in March, it would be released on April 3, and the
bid opening would occur on May 15. In June, the Rate Review
Committee would prepare recommendations for a contract award which
would be presented to each of the City Councils. It is anticipated
that the program would then be implemented before the end of the
1989 calendar year.
FISCAL pokey
Costs for similar programs in the State range from $1.00 to $1.50
per household. Costs for the program will be borne by the rate
payers.
attachm ..t. _
Report on Curbside Recycling Request for Proposals
cc: Regular Distribution
Rate Review Committee (Council Report Only)
Green Valley Disposal
Nancy Cardinet
071-f7 cD2
13777 FRUIT\'.\LE AVENL'E • S.\F A B)(;,sv CALIF( )RNI.\9307( )
1 �i�rr 1408) 867 3438
FebruAry 27, 1989
To:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karen Anderson
Uirtve
Harry Peacock, City Manager, City of SaratogaDa",dhe moyeCie7esn9ei
Kevin Duggan, City Manager, City of Campbell Donald oererson
Deborah Swartfager, Town Manager, Town of LosF'fili,tdsrman
Rosemary Pierce, Chief Administrative Officer, City
of Monte Sereno
From: Four -City Rate Review Committee
Subject: Curbside Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)
The members of the Rate Review Committee are pleased to present
our final draft of the RFP for the selection of a contractor to
operate a curbside recycling service.
SECOMMENDAT ZOX
The Committee recommends that the attached document be forwarded
to your City Council for review and. approval at the second
meeting of the Council during the month of March. This will
allow the RFP to be released on schedule (April 3, 1989) if it is
approved at the policy level. The bid opening is scheduled for
May 15, 1989.
SUMMARY QF up
The following outline summarizes the contents of the RFP:
1. Program will serve four jurisdictions.
2. Program Parameters:
A. Recyclable, collected once Der week (same day as refuse
collection).
B. All single family homes and residential complexes of
four or less units having "can" service will be served.
C. Materials to be collected: newspaper, glass, P.B.T.
plastic (soft drink bottles), aluminum and tin cans.
(Contractors may pick ip other items or cities may add
items after program is initiated).
D. Contractors are asked to describe their ability to
expand • initial program to include collection of waste
oil and provision of service to multi -family households
and businesses.
Curbside Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)
Page 2
1. Collection storage and sat -out containers to be
provided.
F. Public Awareness Campaign is to begin well before
actual collection. Responsibility of Contractor with
assistance of citieb.
G. Contract term would be five years.
3. Contractors to propose total price - first year (includes
all operations costs in excess of those costs covered by
sal• of recyclable materials).
4. An annual escalation price- based on the CPI would be
allowed, not to exceed 7% per year for years two through
five.
5. Billing alternatives - the RFP asks contractors to provide
price for the first year of the program, assuming three
different billing alternatives:
A. Cities billed for total net cost.
B. Each household billed by Contractor directly quarterly.
C. Bach household billed by Contractor directly annually.
6. Contractors also to provide price per 1,000 households so
the proposal process would not need to be repeated if a City
decides not to participate.
7. Possible "contract opener" triggered by actual revenues or
expenditures that substantially exceed projected.
8. Contractors to provide:
A. Detailed description of services.
B. Lists of markets for recyclables.
C. Details of their assumptions used to develop
projections. ,
D. Implementation schedule.
I. Five-year projection of operating costs, program
revenues and payments required to meet net cost.
F. Variety of background/financial/reference information,
proposal bond.
9. Reporting Requirements - responsibility of Contractor.
Not
Curbside Recycling Request for Proposals (RYP) page 3
BAQUIQUIR
In September, 1987, th• Saratoga City Council held a study
session to review issues related to curbside recycling and
discuss the possibility of providing such a program. Information
presented at the meeting and detailed in a Saratoga staff report
can be summarized as follows:
o Of all City -sponsored recycling options, curbside recycling
offers the greatest yield in terms of materials recovered
from the waste stream and is typically more expensive to
operate than other types of recycling.
o Curbside recycling is labor intensive and, therefore,
operating •zp•ns•s generally exceed operating rev•nuss (sal•
of materials).
o Economic feasibility of curbside recycling becomes more
attractive when avoided disposal costs are factored in,
especially as disposal costs per ton increase.
o Certain benefits associated with recycling are difficult to
measure: avoided landfill costs, resource conservation,
energy savings.
o Curbside recycling prograas vary from city to city in terms
of materials collected. Most collect at least newspaper,
glass and aluminum cans.
o Two very important variables affect the cost effectiveness
of a curbside recycling program: particioatiga rates and
market, prices, for recyclabl•s.
o Participation rates are the key to a curbside program.
Collection costs are fixed. Therefore, the more material
collected, the more revenue to offset costs.
o Market prices for materials can vary significantly and
extremely difficult to predict.
o Using a recently impl•m•nted curbside recycling program as
an example, the City of San Jos* estimates a 401
participation rate and a per household per month cost of
about $1.00 Approximately 91 to 121 of the the residential
waist' stream is estimated to be divrt•d from the landfill
at this point.
'l
Quad Vall•v rc+micra.. Coiioanv' • Miami
The Green Valley Disposal Company studied curbside recycling,
reviewed programs in other cities, and sampled potential
r•cyclables contained in the waste stream. As a result of its
study, Green Valley submitted a curbside recycling proposal to
the four cities. The Company proposed to servo residential
customers (single family, duplexes, triplexes, condominiums and
are
Curbside Re :ling Request for Proposals (../P)
Page 4
townhouse dwellings with can service). Newspaper, glass, aluminum
and tin cans, plastic bottles, cardboard, used motor oil and
automobile batteries would be collected. Pick-up would be weekly
on normal refuse collection days, and burlap sacks would be
provided as containers. Green Valley estimated four collection
vehicles would be needed for the operation, and staffing would
consist of four drivers, a processing facility operator and
supervisor. Total annual expense was estimated at $435,000 and
total revenues at $210,000, leaving a net cost of $225,000 or
$.65 per household per month.
The consulting fire of Arthur Young was retained to conduct a
performance audit of Green Valley. At no additional cost, the
firm reviewed the Green Valley curbside recycling proposal as
well. Arthur Young saw the integration of recycling with current
garbage collection and billing systems as an advantage. A
potential disadvantage cited was Green Valley Disposal's lack of
experience in operating a recycling program. The number of
materials proposed to be collected was viewed as excessive, and
the need for an analysis of integrating requirements of the
Recycling and Litter Recovery Act with the proposed program was
noted. Arthur Young also recommended there be some consideration
of other containers. The commodity prices used and waste
composition figures were found to be reasonable and, in general,
Green Valley's costs were found to be reasonable for a bass line
scenario. However, the firm noted the need for a municipal in -
kind budget for things such as public awareness, education,
promotion, etc.
To summarize, Arthur Young recommended that the cities and town
clearly define their recycling objectives and program and develop
an RFP for a curbside recycling program. In this way, the cities
would be driving the process rather than reacting to a proposal.
Co-tZ 9.alid Hula Ifaustistat plan
One of the key issues identified by the Solid Waste Committee of
IGC is the need to reduce the waste stream and recycle.
According to the Solid Waste Plan 1987 Annual Report, capacity
analysis conducted in 1987 indicates that Santa Clara County
communities may face disposal capacity shortages in the future.
To have twenty years of disposal capacity for each city,
expansion of some existing landfills, recycling and protection of
remaininj capacity will be necessary.
A recent amendment to the County Solid Waste Management Plan
requires annual reporting by each city as to its plans for
reducing waste flows and pursuing recycling.
Guadeluns Landfill jammisin
Guadalupe Landfill has plans for expansion and estimates the
current landfill's life at about nine more years. The additional
property in which the landfill would expand is in San Jose's
sphere of influence. As a condition of approval of any
at met
Curbside Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP) Page 5
expansion, San Jose indicates it will annex the landfill. At
that point, two things could happen. First, the San Jos•
Business Tax may be added to the cost of disposing refuse.
Secondly, San Jose currently requires that at least 25% of refuse
must be diverted from the waste stream before it gets to the
landfill.
State Legislation
In 1987, Assembly Bill 1462 was adopted. The legislation
requires counties to include a 201 recycling goal in solid waste
management plans. The recent amendment to the Santa Clara County
plan discussed above resulted from this- legislation.
Two bills were introduced during 1988 that would have required
cities and counties to prepare and implement recycling plans for
their jurisdiction (Assembly Bill 3298 and Senate Bill 2113).
Both bills would have required that cities designate a recycling
coordinator, prepare waste characterization studies, designate
materials to. be recycled, methods of recycling and levels of
recycling to be achieved, as well as an implementation schedule
(AB 3298 would require 25% of refuse to be recycled within five
years, while under SB 2113 a 20% recycling goals would have to be
addressed).
Assembly Bill 3298 was passed before the close of the legislative
session but was vetoed by the Governor. SB 2113 was not passed
out of the Senate.
It is safe to assume that similar measures will be introduced at
the State level in the future as California continues to grapple
with diminishing landfill space and an expanding population.
Assembly Bill 80, introduced at the beginning of the 1989-90
session, is vary similar to AB 3298 of last session.
jurisdiction& amid Ay Green Val sY _ Status 2j Curbside
Recycling
The Monte Sereno City Council indicated its support of curbside
recycling and the Green Valley proposal on March 1, 1988. The
Saratoga City Council and the Los Gatos Town Council have
expressed interest in pursuing a curbside recycling program with
the other cities served by Green Valley. The Campbell City
Council has not taken a position on the issue but reviewed
curbside recycling and a proposed joint -cities approach at a
February, 1989, study session.
Additionally, during the summer of 1988 information was obtained
regarding other potential recycling operators. Two operators
responded to an informal request for information. BFI provided
information about the firm'a experience in other communities and
indicated monthly costs range from $.90 to $1.50 per household.
Waste Management also provided some general information about
recycling programs and indicated an interest in responding to a
formal RFP if one is developed.
Curbside Recycling Request for Proposals (RFP)
Page 6
1
Subsequently, the Green Valley Rats Review Committee was asked by
the four City Managers to prepare a draft RFP for curbside
recycling operators. This action lead to the development of the
attached draft document.
COMCLUS IOj[
The attached RIP describes a curbside recycling service tailored
to meet the needs of the West Valley communities. It encompasses
all the characteristics requested by the City Managers of the
involved jurisdictions. If approved by each of the City Councils
in March, it would be released on April 3, and the bid opening
would occur on May 15. In June, the Rate Review Committee would
prepare recommendations for a contract.award which would be
presented to each of the City Councils. It is anticipated that
the program would then be implemented before the end of the 1989
calendar year.
SUBMITTED BY:
Todd Argow, City of Saratoga
Barbara Lee, City of Campbell
Regina Falkner, Town of Los Gatos
Rosemary Pierce, City of Monte Soren
TWA:ja
Attachment
r